I never said Sheffield should have players in SL. I never said Wales needed an SL club to produce them.

Then why do you keep bringing up how many players each have in the SL at present?!

The private money available to London and Wales to run in Superleague helped the junior scene move on apace in both places and today we see SL players from those places.

What money did Crusaders have? I seem to recall they ran out of it twice in three years of SL, but it didn't stop you championing their inclusion, or the top-down method.

Should millions be available to Sheffield fine, let them have a go at SL and have a go developing Sheffield born players to expand the player pool. After all they have the advantage of plenty of junior teams close by to play.

They've said themselves they aren't ready yet, but you've made it out like they never will be. I just don't see why having Sheffirld-based SL players at present is ANY sort of indicator to their application. So why keep bringing it up? It's a complete mute point.

1.Why do you keep bringing up how many players each have in the SL at present?!

2. What money did Crusaders have?

3. (sheffield) have said themselves they aren't ready yet, but you've made it out like they never will be. I just don't see why having Sheffield-based SL players at present is ANY sort of indicator to their application.

1. There's a heavy shortage of quality players at the moment. For some years the RFL have required SL entrants to produce players of their own. This is the stated reason London are in SL - for the pro player pool. Their academy creates pro players. One has just travelled up to sign for HKR.

2. Not a lot but then again at the time of their inclusion in SL what money did Halifax, Salford, Wakey, Widnes, Leigh, Fev and Castleford have? What losses are HKR making today?? The RFL took Crusaders into SL clearly knowing it would be a struggle and bent over backwards for them and they may have been here today if Wakey had not found their investor.

The RFL had their eyes on Crusaders being the conduit for welsh players to develop through the junior and academy system, as Swansea Jack? said the clubs inclusion in SL boosted the junior scene. Crusaders may have been a money leaking mess but as usual people jumped on that and declared the RFL fools, but they didn't say anything about the other financial messes up north.

The RFL continue to focus on Wales tying up links between SL clubs and the Scorpions and Crusaders, only on Monday they declared this as creating a clear pathway for players in new areas to see a route to Superleague.

I focus on the production of players because many people say it doesn't matter if your academy is not local born, you can sign quality kids from elsewhere. However that's no good unless "elsewhere" is producing the players and on the whole they are not. Looking at the facts hotbeds of junior RL like Cumbria, Hunslet, Oldham, Halifax produce few SL players

3. And so for me the RFL want clubs to primarily develop their own players. Without any money man Sheffield cannot run in SL with a competitive team and an effective academy. There's few local kids to sign and everyone else i.e. richer clubs will be chasing the same kids outside of Sheffield the Eagles have their eyes on.

South Yorkshire is a heavy soccer area with little rugby anyway, London and wales have bigger "rugby" cultures to tap into and our game has had some success. I see a difference, which is fair enough to suggest.

To answer your point the main indicator to their application is their lack of a rich investor, but they will struggle to produce players - how many years do you think they could last in SL after all HKR have hit buffers after six with a lot of fans and private money?

I'm not having a go here, but if you can set out the "virtuous circle" of how Sheffield can build "bottom up" and one day be ready for Superleague, to counter my suggestion it may never happen (because of circumstance) then I would be very interested in your thoughts.

Of course if it involved someone coming along and committing £2M a year to the club for many years that "top down" could be viable. It has to date seen such as LMS and Caro exported north and London born lads in a Broncos team that put 62 points on Wire.

London and Wales have a long association with Rugby League and there were investors there to put money in and it helped towards developing SL players. No history and no money in Sheffield so sadly that's that.

History is nothing. Hunslet have an enormous history behind them but what is it worth today?

Sheffield need a backer or dramatically larger crowds that we can agree on but you seem to be adamant that this a permanent issue.

Sheffield are just as likely to find that guy as half a dozen other sides and would have a better fanbase (as a SL side) that Broncos and possibly Crusaders.

South Yorkshire is a heavy soccer area with little rugby anyway, London and wales have bigger "rugby" cultures to tap into and our game has had some success. I see a difference, which is fair enough to suggest.

It's debatable whether this is really an asset or not. In Wales, there are a lot of quality youngsters who played union and can switch to league but probably won't because the money is better in union. It might fairly easy to get a summer league together but difficult to make it more than this.

In London, union players don't switch very often and whilst London might have a strong union culture, the growth areas are those where union is very weak. The London kids coming through at Broncos may never have played union at all.

It's like that in Scotland, Edinburgh has the "rugby culture" but Glasgow has the most RL players because RU isn't played in working class areas of the city and league offers an alternative to soccer.

It's debatable whether this is really an asset or not. In Wales, there are a lot of quality youngsters who played union and can switch to league but probably won't because the money is better in union. It might fairly easy to get a summer league together but difficult to make it more than this.

In London, union players don't switch very often and whilst London might have a strong union culture, the growth areas are those where union is very weak. The London kids coming through at Broncos may never have played union at all.

It's like that in Scotland, Edinburgh has the "rugby culture" but Glasgow has the most RL players because RU isn't played in working class areas of the city and league offers an alternative to soccer.

1. History is nothing. Hunslet have an enormous history behind them but what is it worth today?

2. Sheffield need a backer or dramatically larger crowds that we can agree on but you seem to be adamant that this a permanent issue.

3. Sheffield are just as likely to find that guy as half a dozen other sides and would have a better fanbase (as a SL side) that Broncos and possibly Crusaders.

1. Oh come on Solly history teaches us a heck of a lot.

2. I can't see a backer for sheffield...........

3. Because it seems from the historical record the people who want to back Superleague tend to have an affinity with the game or a club and tend to only go for clubs big enough to be able to get somewhere.

There are exceptions to the last rule - Wilko and Hughes plough oceans of money in.

But again my bottom line is Sheffield is a soccer city and the businessmen there get on board at the soccer clubs. I work for two of them. It's a very long shot that someone with sheds of money will pick up the Eagles. far more chance of rich businessmen picking up Fax, leigh, Fev, Oldham, Rochdale, Swinton, York, Workington, Hunslet etc etc where there have been clubs for many years and where some of their fans could have made it big and want to take the club into SL. If it ain't happening there then it ain't happening in sheffield.

BESIDES the last 18 months or so has seen most of those who fund Superleague start to draw back from writing out large checks. It could certainly be the case in 2015 that you may not be allowed to include directors loans into business plans.

BESIDES the last 18 months or so has seen most of those who fund Superleague start to draw back from writing out large cheques. It could certainly be the case in 2015 that you may not be allowed to include directors loans into business plans.

That would bu99er up a number of clubs in $uperleague and change the whole structure of the game.

I agree with a lot of what you say, Parksider. Whether it's for ever is something else ....

It's very simple. If a club can find someone to put a couple of million pounds a year into SL they get a place.

If a club can't find any investment and they are skint they don't get a place.

Nobody is a naysayer or against any club (well solly may be) It's just a reality that you need............

Now you say it.

If there is such a team and there are no obvious underachieving cull candidates, as per Crusaders last time, who will you support to be dropped. If there is such a team with the requisite investor support and then there is a Bulls going into admin who will you support for the drop. Are you sure their new investor is putting in 2,000,000 a year at Bradford.

I suspect you will still be championing the incumbent old school members whatever better proposition comes along. You are stuck in an unchanging and unchangeable time warp where no alternative scenarios to your preconceived, set in stone, attitudes are to be allowed.

The main thing history teaches us is that we don't learn from it. BUt jokes aside, whilst you can learn from it, it doesn't mean much to people who were not alive at the time.

The glory days of Leeds United was the Batty / McAllistair / Speed era from me 'cos I was only a babe when Don Revie was in charge.

2. I can't see a backer for sheffield...........

No, there isn't one but that's not to say that there could never be one.

3. Because it seems from the historical record the people who want to back Superleague tend to have an affinity with the game or a club and tend to only go for clubs big enough to be able to get somewhere.

There are exceptions to the last rule - Wilko and Hughes plough oceans of money in.

But again my bottom line is Sheffield is a soccer city and the businessmen there get on board at the soccer clubs. I work for two of them. It's a very long shot that someone with sheds of money will pick up the Eagles. far more chance of rich businessmen picking up Fax, leigh, Fev, Oldham, Rochdale, Swinton, York, Workington, Hunslet etc etc where there have been clubs for many years and where some of their fans could have made it big and want to take the club into SL. If it ain't happening there then it ain't happening in sheffield.

BESIDES the last 18 months or so has seen most of those who fund Superleague start to draw back from writing out large checks. It could certainly be the case in 2015 that you may not be allowed to include directors loans into business plans.

Yes, but this is true of any expansion club, they have trouble finding backers because they don't have the deep roots in the community that M62 clubs have (or used to have). Why pick on Sheffield?

It is the RFL, North Derbyshire Chargers and Derby City who provide the funding for the Community Coach who has built up the activity in North Derbyshire and it is the RFL who have provided significant investment into other posts at the Eagles that cover South Yorkshire (as they have the other professional clubs in the country).